Crime and Morality

In discussions concerning Malaysian crime in terms of severity and frequency, an often suggested argument is how morally degraded society has become when seen in context of a rising crime rate. I have always found this argument rather underwhelming, despite having known victims and having been a victim of crime.

It is a fatal flaw to regard crime as a moral indicator. Morality is a relative concept, one that has no static definition and rule. It has no grounds to fall back on when seen in a solitary state, as morality on its own lacks substance. The moral identity of one man bears no significance on the face of another. Even a fundamental rule of thumb; do no harm, is important to many a moral man but is not present in the morally upstanding bodies of other men.

Conversely, crime has shown itself to be an embodiment of moral values in certain instances in humanity. Consider the infamous members of organized crime, the most popular examples being the mafia of Italy and America and the Yakuza of Japan. A common tie between these gangs, which include the Russian mafia and the Chinese secret societies, is that they have evolved and nurtured in mature societies and powerful nations. While these nations may not be at the forefront of development today, it has been noted that the height of organized crime in each of the said examples coincided with the height of development of their respective societies.

Organized crime has shown itself to be a benevolent occupation, one that places morality, albeit with inbred values, above all. Common humanistic virtues, the main one being family ties and support triumph within each criminal organization.

Considering this however, organized crime is more dangerous a specter than common criminal behaviour. In rich countries, flourishing organized crime indicates that people are forgoing opportunities to prosper through legal activities, and instead are turning to crime purely as another business avenue.

To further expound on this idea, a comparison can be made to countries which have a high crime rate. Good examples are South Africa and certain Latin American countries. In these nations, crime is purely a function of available opportunities, i.e. the less opportunity available to a person, the higher his propensity to engage in criminal activity. Which is why there isn't a Zimbabwean Yakuza or Argentinian mafia. The same seems to apply in Malaysia, where crime is most often committed by poor ethnic minorities and immigrants who face discrimination through racism, xenophobia, lack of skills, etc.

Thus it is clear that to lower the crime rate in medium and lower income countries, the simple answer is to increase opportunities, which is a direct consequence of a liberal and open economic policy. The technicalities of what constitutes this type of policy aren't hard to find.

The crux of the issue is that as the reasons behind our high crime rate are clear, it is less frightening than having criminals whose only motives are self-fulfillment. Crime is not a social indicator of morality and thus the Malaysian situation is one that is temporal and relatively insignificant in nature, with the caveat being that economic progress takes place.